In his original filing Leahy, through his attorneys, asked for the remedy of having Martin removed from his seat on council if Leahy prevails in the suit.

The Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the opinion stated that overall public interest warrants allowing Leahy to pursue a quo warranto action. A quo warranto challenges whether a person lawfully holds a public office. Approval from the Attorney General is required before a private party can bring a quo warranto lawsuit in superior court.

As Ridgecrest is a general law city, state law requires that all council candidates live within city limits.

The AG's opinion states that “After carefully reviewing the parties' submissions, we conclude that a substantial question is presented regarding [Martin's] legal residency and that it would be in the public interest to allow a quo warranto lawsuit to proceed.”

The Daily Independent received notice the opinion late Thursday. The decision’s conclusion states that “Leave to sue is granted to determine whether the proposed defendant Wallace T. Martin meets the legal residency for holding public office of a council member of the City of Ridgecrest.”

Leahy had papers served to Martin last year, with the intent to ask Attorney General Xavier Beccera to either present a quo warranto suit against Martin or allow Leahy to sue.

Bill Bruce, Leahy’s attorney, told the DI that this was a big win in Leahy’s favor.

“This allows Scott to sue Wallace Martin on the residency issue,” Bruce said. “We will take depositions and discovery. The ruling means the state attorney general found credible evidence for the decision.”

Bruce said the lawsuit will be filed in Kern County but did not say when.

Wallace contended that he resided in the city limits when he filed his papers for election in 2016.

Leahy was also a candidate in that race and came in behind Martin with fewer than 100 votes separating the two.

According to the opinion, Martin has the burden of showing he changed his domicile to a location inside Ridgecrest prior to being issued his nomination papers in August 2016 and before his election in November 2016. It states that the AG has found that there is a “substantial question as to whether [Martin] carried his burden of showing that he changed his longtime domicile to a location inside Ridgecrest at the time of his nomination.”

The AG opinion goes on, “we have no cause to doubt that Defendant intended that his rental property on Lee Avenue would function as his domicile for purposes of his nomination to city council, effective July 2016, but there remains a question whether it actually became his new domicile.” (Italics in original.)

The AG’s decision states that Martin had declared he had leased property on Lee Avenue on June 27, 2016, in order to “follow the letter of the law” to be eligible for city council. Wallace also declared that he had purchased a duplex property on California Avenue on Oct. 25, 2016, as an extra step to establish legal residency inside city limits.

The opinion reaches similar conclusions about the California Avenue property, finding that a substantial question exists if Martin met his burden of showing his change of domicile to Ridgecrest prior to the election.

The opinion also notes the lack of evidence that Martin had a habitation in Ridgecrest from November 2016 to April 2017. “In fact, the evidence submitted by [Leahy] credibly suggests that there has been, at least, a sizable amount of time when [Martin] has had no physical presence in Ridgecrest since the election,” it states.

Leahy is contending that Martin does not actually live at either the Lee or California Avenue addresses in Ridgecrest and as such is ineligible to hold his seat on the council. Leahy's application to sue in quo warranto contains reports from a private investigator showing that Martin appeared to be residing at the Felspar address from May 9 through 11 and May 14 through 15, 2018 – the time periods observed.

Martin in his declaration responded that he “stayed at” the Felspar Avenue address May 9 to 11 to care for his wife and animals on the property and on the evening of May 14 to care for the animals while his wife traveled to UCLA for medical treatment.

Leahy also submitted evidence from former council member Lori Acton, who lived near Martin's California Avenue residence. According to Leahy's filing, Acton claimed she had an unobstructed view of Martin's duplex and that despite checking daily she never observed Martin, his wife or their cars there.

Also included in Leahy's original filing were declarations from two process servers, Peggy Partida and Kenneth Yule, supporting Leahy's claim that Martin still resides at the Felspar Avenue property. Martin was served with the original quo warranto application in the morning at the Felspar Avenue address, and appeared to have just woken up – suggesting he had been sleeping there. In addition, the process servers were unable to locate him at the Ridgecrest addresses after multiple attempts.

Martin's contention throughout has been that he maintains dual residency.

The AG opinion, however, states that for purposes of determining residency to run for office, residence means “legal residence” or “domicile.” The opinion further states that “[l]egal residence or domicile is defined as a place of physical presence joined with the intent to make a permanent home” and that “[a]lthough a person may have multiple residences, a person may only have one legal residence/domicile.”

The Daily Independent reached out to Martin for comment in the late evening hours, but did not receive a response.

See the Daily Independent’s Saturday story for more details.

Editor's note: this story has been updated to provide more information.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.